Efficiency of box-traps and leg-hold traps with several bait types for capturing small carnivores (Mammalia) in a disturbed area of Southeastern Brazil

Abstract

Capturing small carnivores is often necessary for obtaining key ecological data. We compared the efficiency of box and leg-hold traps, using live and dead bait, to capture six carnivore species (Herpailurus yagouaroundi (É. Geoffroyi, 1803), Leopardus tigrinus (Schreber, 1775), Nasua nasua (Linnaeus, 1766), Cerdocyon thous (Linnaeus, 1766), Eira barbara (Linnaeus, 1758), and Galictis cuja (Molina, 1782)). The use of leg-hold traps significantly increased the capture rate of carnivores (5.77%) and non-target species (non-carnivores, 11.54%). Dead bait significantly attracted more non-carnivores than carnivores and live bait was more efficient for capturing carnivores (2.56%) than non-carnivores (0.77%). Both box and leg-hold traps caused some minor injuries (swelling and claw loss). We provide recommendations for the ethical use of these trap and bait types. Rev. Biol. Trop. 55 (1): 315-320. Epub 2007 March. 31.

Live-trapping Ocelots (Leopardus pardalis): traps, baits, injuries, immobilization and costs

“…Our selectivity of live-trapping ocelots (22.06%) was similar to the selectivity for box-trapping felids (22.58%) of the only available published data from Brazil (Michalski et al 2007). This rate can be considered low, as expected for box-trapping (McCarthy et al 2013), when compared to other methods such as leg hold traps for pumas (70.13%, calculated from Logan et al 1999).…”

“…Moreover box-traps were especially useful to house ocelots during anesthetic recovery (Mowat et al 1994). We captured felids exclusively with live-baits (similar to Michalski et al 2007), although there are reports of occasional ocelots captured using dead baits (i.e. Rocha et al Cataleptic anesthesia = period from injection to first signs of recovery.…”

“…However, due to their secretive behavior, these animals are difficult to capture and its capture is expensive (Barea-Azcón et al 2006;McCarthy et al 2013), which may explain the increasing use of remote camera-trapping in recent carnivore ecological research (Dillon & Kelly 2008). Despite being useful and cost-effective for a wide range of objectives, non-invasive techniques may provide limited information on community structure, population dynamics, home range size, activity patterns, habitat use, denning, social behavior and health status (Deem et al 2001;Kolbe et al 2003;Michalski et al 2007). Considering the advantages of capturing and handling carnivore species to perform ecological and health survey, humane and efficient live-trapping are the best methods to be used (Mowat et al 1994).…”

“…Despite a proliferation of studies evaluating mammal trap efficiency and related injuries in the 1990s (Mowat et al 1994), very few have been published targeting capture methods of carnivores in tropical forests (Michalski et al 2007;McCarthy et al 2013). With few exceptions (i.e.…”

Estrutura da comunidade de mamíferos de médio e grande porte em uma paisagem fragmentada com matriz de eucalipto, Capão Bonito e Buri, SP

“…In this study, we conclude that the choice of sampling method used with medium and large sized mammals should consider the purpose of the survey, and in several times is recommended the combined use of techniques, since different methods may be selective to a range of species. Embora seja bastante comum para animais de pequeno porte, a utilização de coleta de médios e grandes mamíferos com armadilhas de laço ou box-traps envolvem custos elevados, um alto esforço de campo é considerado bastante invasivo pelo stress e injúrias causados aos animais (OLSEN et al 1986;EARLE et al, 2003;MICHALSKI et al, 2007;DARROW et al, 2009). Por isso, apesar de sua eficiência e confiabilidade na identificação (MICHALSKI et al, 2007), devem ser preteridos quando há a possibilidade de utilizar métodos menos invasivos (MANGINI; NICOLA, 2003).…”